Category — In The Press

It is not easy being a moderate. I have been shamelessly shilling for my book Leading from the Center: Why Moderates Make the Best Presidents since launching it last Monday. Correction: I have been constructively engaging in discourse about my latest historical monograph. Sitting in my office in Washington, DC at the Bipartisan Policy Center, I have been traveling across America, doing one of these satellite radio tours.

While ricocheting virtually from North to South, I discovered – or, to be more accurate – rediscovered – that in today’s partisan universe, even centrism and attempts at non-partisanship can be highly politicized.

• “Ah, you say you’re for centrism,” said a talk radio host in Detroit, “do you think a true centrist would be willing to be an appeaser and talk to dictators who hate America?” Of course, I had no idea which candidate he might be talking about……
• For balance – both geographical and political – a talk radio host from across the aisle in Georgia said: “McCain may talk about centrism but aren’t all Republican policies about greed and selfishness.” Hmm, not sure who he was favoring either…

But my two favorite comments were actually non-partisan comments in defense of partisanship, Dmitri and Bob, right in Washington, DC, introduced my WTOP interview by saying:

“If you want to say a word that sucks the air out of the room – say moderate - -it’s so boring, it just gets people yawning….”

And, more crudely, one radio host asked:

“if you hang out in the middle of the road, doncha just end up as road kill?”

This slam reminded of the Texas populist Jim Hightower’s 1997 polemic against his fellow Democrat Bill Clinton’s centrism entitled: There’s Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadilloes.

This, of course, is the problem. We need to remember that there is a rich, vigorous tradition of muscular moderation in America, of dynamic leaders who sought the center out of strength not weakness, seeking to unite the country not just rile the partisans. Both Barack Obama and John McCain, in different ways, have said they want to lead from the center. Unless we figure out how to give them positive reinforcement for that constructive centrism, unless we push for moderation, we will see yet another round of red versus blue divisive politics.

The green light Ehud Olmert recently gave to Kadima party primaries marks the beginning of the end of his rule. The buildup to the primaries will also revive the debate that consumed Israelis in 2005 and 2006 about the viability relevance and value of a centrist party. In my new book Leading from the Center: Why Moderates Make the Best Presidents which I am launching this week I argue that centrism is a traditional — and essential — way of governing in the United States. Israel too would flourish with prime ministers leading from the center although the moderate impulse in Israel is weaker than in the United States.

The discussion about American centrism like so many discussions about American politics dates back to the Founding Fathers who established the country. As children of the Enlightenment, the Framers trusted reason and feared partisanship. They hoped America would be led by presidents who were philosopher-kings floating above the political fray hewing to what George Washington called the “middle way advancing our common cause.” As America’s first president Washington played a more realistic political game than the Founders expected. Still Washington spent much of his presidency urging subordinates and citizens to be reasonable to learn to disagree without being disagreeable and to follow a moderate path of civility and rationality in political discussion and actual governance.

Even as parties developed America’s governing structure as well as its founding philosophies pushed politics toward the center. With no proportional representation and “winner take all” elections giving victors full power the system encouraged the formation of two parties. Both parties tried to forge broad national umbrella organizations uniting north and south east and west. Power was not shared but concentrated especially on the presidential level. Quite simply parties needed the votes they needed the mythical 50 percent plus one a majority in the Electoral College to assume power.

Even after being elected, America’s greatest presidents succeeded by leading from the center. Abraham Lincoln was a pragmatist who saved the union by striking a delicate balance between Northerners committed to abolishing slavery and Northerners more passionate about preserving the union. Theodore Roosevelt taught that romantic nationalism could be the glue holding a centrist vision - and party - together. With his step-by-step incremental reforms Franklin Roosevelt maneuvered deftly between radicals demanding revolution and businessmen defending the status quo to improvise the New Deal. More recently Ronald Reagan understood that if he governed from the right he would fail but if he veered toward the center while keeping certain core principles he could restore American patriotism while reviving America’s economy.

American history teaches us that not all plays to the center succeed. Both Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter had surprisingly moderate policies but each of their presidencies foundered for other reasons. In Nixon’s case his anger and illegal acts did him in; in Carter’s case his pessimism and incompetence did it. Bill Clinton was also a moderate but he was a spineless centrist far too willing to sacrifice core ideals. Had Clinton fought as hard for some policies as he did to keep his presidency during the Monica Lewinsky scandal he might have fulfilled his potential rather than being remembered as a disappointing woulda, shoulda, coulda president.

America’s experience teaches that democracies need a muscular moderate virtuous enough to stick to defining principles nimble enough to adapt to the unpredictable circumstances any leader faces. Democracies require civility tolerance mutual appreciation of rights and liberties to thrive. Just as Al Gore has taught us to measure our own carbon footprints we need to assess a leader’s toxic footprint. A leader who leaves a democracy more divided more cynical more mistrustful has failed.

Israel lacks America’s historically consecrated moderate tradition but shares America’s need for national unity and mass civility. We often forget that Israel’s governing structures were established by Eastern Europeans emerging from autocracy and that the bulk of Israel’s population consists of Middle Eastern and North African Jews new to democracy.

The Zionist revolution was not a centrist revolution like the American Revolution and the resulting Israeli political parties were more ideological narrow and fragmented than the American parties. Israel’s founders such as David Ben-Gurion and Menachem Begin came from warring ideological camps. To this day the Knesset includes a dizzying array of parties some of which question the state’s core ideals.

When Ariel Sharon founded Kadima he was trying to advance his career not to trigger a much-needed democratic reform or push toward civility. Wherever one stands on the question of the disengagement from Gaza there is no doubt that Sharon bulldozed over democratic norms to impose the plan on his reluctant party and on his constituents. He posed the question in various forums repeatedly ignoring the “no” answer he received.

Sharon’s successor Ehud Olmert has given centrism a bad name by his tendency to maneuver constantly to stay in power and appearing more committed to staying alive politically than leading the country effectively let alone morally.

Still, Sharon’s and Olmert’s Kadima party has provided an infrastructure for a badly needed push toward the center. Israeli politics does not only need to be cleansed of corruption a new civility needs to take hold among the leaders and the led. Israelis should start worrying about their leaders’ toxic footprints — and their own. A democracy needs a sense of mutuality, unity and tolerance. Too often in Israel those ideals are mocked, not just violated.

Israelis have long displayed national unity during times of war - and in pursuit of peace. Israel needs — and deserves — a leader who can summon that same sense of national unity and fraternity to help make the country thrive day-to-day, not just survive a crisis.

This article first appeared in the Jerusalem Post, June 16, 2008. It can also be accessed at Israel Insider